US and Allied forces are said to be made up of integrated manned aircraft, already-present/now-repositioned ground troops, cruise missiles and ships with standoff strike capability.

The coalition’s target list is reportedly being broadened and will involve a multi-layer, multi-wave operation against Syrian military assets including Assad’s infantry units, surface-to-air defenses and chemical weapon dumps.

Syria is reporting to be engaging in a military response of its own. Damascus is being hit, with concern on the US\Allied side in avoiding engaging Russian and Iranian military personnel in the region.

The US Secretsry of Defense, in a news briefing on the attack, declared this to be a one-time response, but who knows? Welcome to the tinderbox.

Hey, considering POTUS gave Russians the warning an imminent attack was on its way, they had lots of time to hide their own weapons, and according to late breaking news, allowed the Syrians to hide theirs along with them.

POTUS gave the Russians plenty of notice, but for good reason. It takes time to build a coalition. If tbe US goes in alone, maybe there will end up being a US/Russia war that could even spread to American soil. But when the US, UK, and France go in together, it's Russia against all three countries if they want war. Russia even vowed to fight back for Syria if Syria was attacked by the US. As it is, I don't think Russia fired a single shot. So we win, Russia and Bashar lose, and we pay no real price for striking Syria's chemical production, storage, and R&D Facilities. That is how it should be.

I respectfully disagree. The fault is our own country which again has an intelligence system which failed to understand that any use of chemicals in Syria was NOT by the Syrian government but by the "rebels" intentionally to get Trump to act.

It was prudent to notify the Russians, to get their nationals out of harm's way. Trump knows that dead Russians is no way to pay back Putin for all his kindnesses. I'd say on balance Putin is not getting very good ROI ("Return On Investment").

"Today, the nations of Britain, France, and the United States of America have marshaled their righteous power against barbarism and brutality" (#45).

This is just 'delusional to democrats' because king Obama and Kerry eliminated all chemical weapons in Syria!!!! Everyone knows Obama and Kerry would never Lie to the American people!

They would still be telling us the same lies unless someone like the President we have now is willing to make a point!

To show us that Democrats are not only anti-American but anti-humanity ------- A trio of Senate Democrats on Friday pressed President Trump to explain his rationale and legal justification for a potential military strike against Syria following last week's reported chemical weapons attack.

I think you need to reread that article. Almost all of the quotations from Obama officials are more nuanced than the author claims. Obama said he made "an important achievement in our ongoing effort" to get rid of Syrian chemical weapons." Again, after the deal with Russia, "we are getting chemical weapons out of Syria without initiating a strike." Likewise, an Obama official stated that "Bashar al-Assad doesn’t have a declared chemical weapon stockpile." Note the word "declared," which means Assad does have "undeclared" weapons.

The article is tendentious nonsense by authors who won't even provide their names: just initials. That's why they can, in their encomiums for Trump, misquote people so egregiously.

That said, Obama's foreign policy was weak; and Syria was one of his biggest failures. One doesn't draw a line in the sand only then to erase it. The effect of such ignominious conduct is to encourage people like Assad (and Putin). Obama's negligence let things drift dangerously and, as a result, the most delicate of policy problems are in the hands of a man who neither reads briefings nor employs advisors.

News is saying now that because Syria has already won its civil war, it using chemical weapons this time around was to test the resolve of the allied forces. It has no military need to deploy them on its citizenry to control its population via another genocide.

Why though? Is Syria testing the waters for Russia who serves as its puppet master?

I had been watching and reading concerning the other attempts of the rebels to try to use chemical weapons in order to get the US to act. Our leaders gave the OK weeks ago, saying that IF Syria used chemical weapons the US would act! Why on earth would the Syrian government use such weapons when they are WINNING? The rebels had been trying to create a false action for weeks.

BTW, when Trump had earlier used missiles (back a year ago), an expert at MIT who examined the evidence and concluded that the sarin was NOT dropped by any plane! Yet, because some group the UN used, based not on physical evidence, wrongly concluded from interviews that it was dropped, it is part of the US mantra.

All of this reminds one of the 1964 attack on a US destroyer which turned out to be untrue but led to an escalation in Vietnam and the false conclusions of huge stores of "weapons of mass destruction" which set forth the second Gulf War.

There are good reasons why Syria would use chemical weapons even if it was winning.

Putting those aside, though, can you provide sources for your statements about the Syrian rebels being the ones using chemical weapons? I believe that is wrong but would like to read your side of the story to see if I am missing anything.

Also, perhaps, any citations demonstrating that the Syrian government abandoned, as opposed to, hiding its arsenal?

The Syrian government and the Russians had specifically found a series of attempts by the rebels to create the appearance of a chemical attacks for some time and especially in the past several weeks during the situation in East Gouta. The rebels were thwarted in the prior attempts despite their announcements of "incidents". I am quite certain that the present inspectors will conclude that the Russian experts are right and that Syria did not use chemical weapons.

I understand how seeing CIA, FBI, etc. political appointed 'baboons', one could get the impression that 'false intelligence' is the norm. They may make mistakes at times but not when in comes to bombing a country.

In spite of 'corrupt leadership' these agencies do function as intended. They have resources on the ground, in the air, psychics, etc. to make 'assessments'! Additionally, I believe the UK would not blindly follow the US and they also have similar 'intelligence'.

I don't believe the US, UK or France needs to wait for any 'investigation'. They didn't either!

If it makes you feel any better, I used my intuitive tools to ask who was responsible for the 'chemical bombing' ---- I got elements supporting the Syrian govt. so for me case closed. I do not share the government assessment on 9/11.

Also, what was the major target ------ chemical plants! What was the response from Russia or Iran ------ 'nothing'!

As for Maddow she questioned the rationale of POTUS for his bombing of Syria without seeking Congressional approval. Wondering if it is a diversion tactic to distract from the maelstrom he's been involved with on a continual news cycle of chaos in his administration. I didn't get the sense that Maddow was opposed to it so much as questioning the rationale for it and the timing.

As the eradication of Christianity in the ME continues apace, thanks to the U.S. and its allies.

Seven Catholic popes were from Syria.

Maybe we'll get a Damascus Temple when the dust has settled some day (lol)

...

Christians in Syria make up approximately 10% of the population... The country's largest Christian denomination is the Eastern Orthodox Church of Antioch (known as the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East), closely followed by the Melkite Catholic Church, one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, which has a common root with the Eastern Orthodox Church of Antioch, and then by an Oriental Orthodoxy churches like Syriac Orthodox Church and Armenian Apostolic Church.

There are also a minority of Protestants and members of the Assyrian Church of the East and Chaldean Catholic Church. The city of Aleppo is believed to have the largest number of Christians in Syria.

In the late Ottoman rule, a large percentage of Syrian Christians emigrated from Syria, especially after the bloody chain of events that targeted Christians in particular in 1840, the 1860 massacre, and the Assyrian genocide.

According to historian Philip Hitti, approximately 900,000 Syrians arrived in the United States between 1899 and 1919 (more than 90% of them were Christians). The Syrians referred include historical Syria or the Levant encompassing Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine.

The Christian communities of Syria, which comprise 11.2% of the population, spring from two great traditions or 2.5 million in 2010 before the civil war started and down from 25% of the Syrian population of 2.5 million in 1920.

Roman Catholicism and Protestantism were introduced by missionaries and a small number of Syrians are members of Western denominations.

The vast majority of Catholics belong to the Melkite (Greek Catholic) Church which is the result of schism within the Greek Orthodox Church over a disputed election to the Patriarchal See of Antioch in 1724. Others belong to other Christian Churches in union with Rome: Maronites, Syriacs, Armenians, Chaldeans and a small number of Latin Rite Catholics. The rest belong to the Eastern communions, which have existed in Syria since the earliest days of Christianity.

Muhammad's first indirect interaction with the people of Damascus was when he sent Shiya bin Wahab to Haris bin Ghasanni, the king of Damascus. In his letter, Muhammad stated: "Peace be upon him who follows true guidance. Be informed that my religion shall prevail everywhere. You should accept Islam, and whatever under your command shall remain yours."

While the Muslims administered the city, the population of Damascus remained mostly Christian—Eastern Orthodox and Monophysite—with a growing community of Muslims from Mecca, Medina, and the Syrian Desert.

The governor assigned to the city which had been chosen as the capital of Islamic Syria was Mu'awiya I. After the death of Caliph Ali in 661, Mu'awiya was chosen as the caliph of the expanding Islamic empire. Because of the vast amounts of assets his clan, the Umayyads, owned in the city and because of its traditional economic and social links with the Hijaz as well as the Christian Arab tribes of the region, Mu'awiya established Damascus as the capital of the entire Caliphate.

With the ascension of Caliph Abd al-Malik in 685, an Islamic coinage system was introduced and all of the surplus revenue of the Caliphate's provinces were forwarded to the treasury of Damascus.

Arabic was also established as the official language, giving the Muslim minority of the city an advantage over the Aramaic-speaking Christians in administrative affairs. It is critical to note that, at the time Damascus was conquered by the Muslims, the majority of Arabs were either pagans or Christians.

Important Marian church in Damascus. Arabic-speaking Syrian Catholics utilizing the Byzantine rite. Don't be surprised if this church doesn't last much longer with all the chaos going on:

The Holy Cross Cathedral ... also called Greek-Melkite Patriarchal Cathedral of the Dormition of Our Lady is the Catholic cathedral of Melkite Greek Church in the city of Damascus, the capital of Syria.

It is the seat of the Melkite Archieparchia of Damascus (Latin: Archieparchia Damascena Graecorum Melkitarum) dependent on the Melkite Patriarchate of Antioch which includes about 150,000 baptized and twenty parishes with fifty priests. Its faithful, assigned from the 18th century to the Holy See in Rome, employs the Arabic language and the Byzantine rite.

The Archbishop Vicar (or Eparca) since 2006 is Bishop Joseph Absi, former Superior General of the Society of Missionaries of St. Paul. The cathedral is dedicated to the Dormition of the Virgin, an event that describes the Catholic belief about the assumption of Mary without going through death.

I have a colleague who is married to a Syrian Christian. They support Assad, not because he isn't a vile dictator, but because he maintains a status quo which prevents Syrian Christians from being massacred by Daech or by the Islamic "freedom fighters" supported by the West...

Assad himself is from a minority in Syria; his Alawites comprise about the same proportion of the Sunni-dominated country that Christians do. So yes, the Christians and other minorities prefer Assad to chaos.

Assad cooperates closely with Iran because Alawites are a Shi'ite sect, loosely speaking, and because Iran and Syria share strategic interests. That's where the problem arises: now that Assad is more or less without rivals in most of Syria, Iranian (and Russian) influence has expanded across the northern Middle East.

It's a horrific brutality that seems to cross the line, similar to the holocaust - at what point does the civilized world just sit back and do nothing? In your opinion the POTUS should just sit back and do nothing despite what is happening to these little children?

Jihadis just established a guaranteed method to "bait" foreign intervention. Stage a chemical weapons attack, get American air strikes. Expect more chemical weapons attacks.

A Tomahawk missile costs about $1.4 million. Trump just launched over 100 of them so that's over $140,000,000 down the tubes. Probably half of them got shot down before doing any real damage to whatever they were aiming at.

And it still hasn't been proven that the Syrian army was responsible for the chemical attacks. The missile strike hit just days before a scheduled site inspection by the OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague.)

The attacks were not done by "jihadis" but by the Syrian government. And jihadis don't have chemical weapons. It's not even obvious where they would get them since Syria, Iran and Russia are trying to destroy the Sunni militants.

As for OPCW, the Russians have a powerful position in that entity and can veto or discredit reports of chemical weapons in the Syrian arsenal or findings of Syrian involvement in the slaughter of civiliations. That isn't the place to go for "truth." The UK, France, and the US are much better at sussing this sort of thing out, and they have.

We can argue about the utility of the Western strikes, but not the source of the chemical weapons attack. At least not reasonably.

We can conversely argue, reasonably, about whether the strike was motivated primarily by military considerations or rather as a means of changing the topics of conversation in the US and UK capitals. The timing and nature of the punitive strikes, I think, are open to serious question.

1 These "attacks" were not be the Syrian government.2 The US the Uk et al are NOT better at diagnosing by merely looking at staged television shots rather than actual looking at the physical evidence. Our leadership has been convinced on the basis of staged pictures, etc., rather than real evidence. We have been hornswaggled.

United Kingdom is not united on this,Scotland are totally against it,why does the UK always follow the US,we are a small country with limited resources,our forces have been depleted by the Conservative Government,The UK Parliament is not behind this,no vote was taken,The Prime Minister is only trying to appear to be a force for good to detract people from the horrific mess the country is in.

The US has a meglomaniac for President,people in the UK laugh at him,he is no statesman and is dangerous when he trys to appear so.

Speaking of a "horrific mess", well, I mean, the UK was also sort of in a horrific mess during WWII. As much as you probably hate to admit it "Kizzie", the United States did help Britain during WWII when Nazi Germany was about ready to annihilate your asses into the ground. Maybe the current British PM still remembers how the US saved Britain from destruction. Could be that your PM values having an civilized ally like the US, who would defend you in a heartbeat.

So you know your PM personally? You seem to know his thoughts? How do you know what your PM is thinking?

Not sure I understand the distinction between chemicals and things like bsrrel bombs. Syrian Childers and others are just as agonized and killed from both. I carried a gas mask in WW2. Quite sure I would have been dead whatever kind of weapon dropped on my head.

Kentish Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> Not sure I understand the distinction between> chemicals and things like bsrrel bombs. Syrian> Childers and others are just as agonized and> killed from both. I carried a gas mask in WW2.> Quite sure I would have been dead whatever kind of> weapon dropped on my head.

World will see this as a mere tantrum, Assad et al will tuck away the chemistry set, folks will give the USA a wide berth - but not a berth of deference or respect. If you act crazy enough at the restaurant, patrons will leave and staff will stay out of your way. They'll let you pee in the kitchen.

Give it three weeks and we will have another distraction du jour. But nothing more.

How dare Assad kill three or four dozen people with gas. Isn't he satisfied to be more civilized and kill his people by the tens of thousands with barrel bombs and more conventional means. That's the way not to get other nations upset after all...why can't Assad stick to methods allow?